-3

In the case of fine tuning, does God really explain the improbability of the right constants being chosen for life? I’m failing to see how “God wanted the constants to be so” tells us why a particular set of constants were chosen instead of another. This is because we would still have no explanation for why a God who wants this exists in the first place. Thus, by extension, the “surprise” of the coincidence remains, while all the disadvantages of God (such as being a theory without independent evidence) remains.

Is there any other coincidence that God does explain? For example, what about the people who report seeing things at the top of closets on their death bed during near death experiences? Could God explain these?

Or dreams where someone sees God and an event happens in the dream and then the next day, that same event happens? Would God explain something like this that would otherwise be a surprising coincidence?

Improve this question
11
  • 3
    Similar questions have been asked under different avatars (thinkingman and Baby_philosopher) by the same user, e.g. philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/97997/… or philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/111599/… . If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.
    – user6527
    Commented Jun 28 at 13:43
  • I’d say it’s similar to the second question but not exactly but it is closed and it has no answers (and comments point out how the close doesn’t make sense).
    – Hart Lort
    Commented Jun 28 at 13:47
  • 2
    one comment says it is a good question, five users disagree, which is why they closed the question - I agree with the five the question was unfocused and not answerable with facts. This question is similarly unfocused and unanswerable by facts. Any coincidence can be explained by God, but that doesn't mean the are explained by God and AFAICS there is no universally acceptable means of establishing that.
    – user6527
    Commented Jun 28 at 13:49
  • 1
    @DikranMarsupial - Ah, I wasn't aware of the history in this case. Agree with your points too.
    – mudskipper
    Commented Jun 28 at 14:02
  • 2
    No one claims that God arbitrarily wanted the constants to have certain values. This is a straw man argument.
    – David Gudeman
    Commented Jun 28 at 14:20

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

"God" is a conceptional joker who solves every problem as far as the problem does not contradict logic - thanks to his omnipotence.

History shows that some theologians even discussed solutions to problems which contradict common logic.

Improve this answer
11
  • 1
    This is supposed to be a philosophy site, not a snarky new atheist site.
    – David Gudeman
    Commented Jun 28 at 14:19
  • 1
    The answer could have been better worded. One of the problems with questions like this is it just ends up being an excuse for reiterating prior beliefs in a manner that is not conducive to productive discussion. FWIW, the ability to do the logically impossible is plausibly part of being omnipotent, so the discussion of the latter paragraph is not unreasonable. Consider God being the avatar of the programmer that designed the simulation within which we exist, the program can allow their avatar to do more or less anything they like.
    – user6527
    Commented Jun 28 at 14:37
  • 1
    n.b. I had already given basically the same answer as a comment "Any coincidence can be explained by God, but that doesn't mean the are explained by God and AFAICS there is no universally acceptable means of establishing that"
    – user6527
    Commented Jun 28 at 14:38
  • 1
    @DikranMarsupial I corrected the typo now.
    – Jo Wehler
    Commented Jun 28 at 14:57
  • 1
    @HartLort I was suggesting avoiding rhetorical debates and your response starts with a classic "tu quoque" attack - do you not see the irony there? You say "Do you respect..." I respect them, even if I don't agree with their position. "Simply speaking what you believe in doesn’t make you arrogant," no, but going on the "attack" is often a good indication. This is not a good use of the comment thread for Jo's answer, so I will leave it there.
    – user6527
    Commented Jun 28 at 17:20

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .